11/29/2004 WORK SESSION ONLY ITEMS
I
~ Clearwater Work Session Agenda
u Clearwater City Council Work Session - Monday, November 29,2004 9:00 AM
Presentations
1. Service Award
2. Certificates for completion of Supervisory Training
Purchasing
1. MIA-COM Private Radio Systems - 30 D28MPX Mobile Provoice Orion 806-870MHZ,
35W radios, accessories and installation kits and D2CP5S Control Unit Systems with
accessories at a cost of $118,237.50 and authorize lease purchase funding.
2. Southern Sewer Equipment - 2005 Sterling L7501 truck chassis with Vac-Con sewer
cleaner body at a cost of $190,114.50 and authorize lease purchase financing.
3. Petroleum Traders Corp. - Vehicle fuel, unleaded gasoline and diesel, during the period
December 17, 2004 through December 16, 2005 at a cost not to exceed $1,400,000.
4. Terra Excavating Inc. - Increase the City Manager's award from $98,000 to $140,000
for emergency pick up and removal of storm debris.
Finance
1. Declare the list of vehicles and equipment surplus to the needs of the City and
authorize disposal through sale to the highest bidder at the Tampa Machinery Auction,
Tampa, Florida.
2. Adopt Resolution 04-37 establishing the intent to reimburse certain Stormwater project
costs incurred with proceeds of future tax-exempt financing.
Gas System
1. Approve First Amendment to Agreement and Gas Supply and Transportation
Agreement with Peoples Gas System; approve the filing of the Joint Petition for the
First Amendment to Agreement with the Florida Public Service Commission; approve
the Master Marketing Agreement with TECO Partners, Inc.; approve the Developer
Agreement for Natural Gas Distribution Service with Connerton, L.L.C.; authorize the
appropriate officials to execute same and authorize the Gas System Managing Director
to approve future Developer Agreements.
2. Adopt Resolution #04-34 approving PGP Gas Supply Agreement NO.1 with Florida
Gas Utility and necessary documents to accomplish same and authorize the
appropriate officials to execute same.
3. Approve the Clearwater Gas System Gas Supply Hedging Policy as part of the City
Commission Policies (Finance and Budget),
Marine and Aviation
1. Approve amendment to Chapter 33, Section 33.067 of the Code of Ordinances
amending defined areas for no internal combustion motors on Sand Key and pass on
first reading Ordinance No. 7352-04.
Work Session Agenda 11-29-2004
Page 1 of 4
Police
1. Approve an agreement between THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON COMMUNITY
SERVICE commonly referred to as VOLUNTEER FLORIDA and the CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA for cash match funding of $52,163 for the period January 1,
2005 through December 31, 2005 for AmeriCorps Clearwater, and approve 12.4 FTE
positions, and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same.
2. Approve the Pinellas County Combined Voluntary Cooperation And Operational
Assistance Mutual Aid Agreement For Law Enforcement Services, and that the
appropriate officials be authorized to execute same.
Solid Waste/General Services
1. Approve an Interlocal Agreement with Pinellas County relating to intergovernmental
cooperation for effective post-disaster debris management, debris site monitoring; ratify
and confirm piggybacking the county contract with Phillips and Jordan Inc.(P&J), of
Robbinsville, NC, effective 9/18/04, for debris removal, reduction, and disposal; ratify
and confirm an increase in the P&J contract for additional storm services for $337,000
or a not to exceed total of $400,000; authorize the appropriation of an additional
$600,000 from the Central Insurance Fund retained earnings to project 0181-99927 as
funding for continued storm related damage, repair and city-wide debris clean-up; and
that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same.
Public Communications
1. Public Engagement Report
Engineering
1. Beachwalk 60% design
2. Continue until the City Council meeting of January 20, 2005 the applicant's request to
vacate the north one-half of Dempsey Street (A.K.A. 721 Lakeview Road, VAC
2004-16).
3. Approve the Parsons Water & Infrastructure, Inc. Work Order for Construction
Engineering & Inspection services for the Digester Refurbishment construction phase
of the Biosolids Treatment Implementation project in the amount of $477,552, and that
the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same.
4. Award a one year contract to Biological Research Associates, of Tampa for Nuisance &
Exotic Control & Maintenance on City Lakes, Ponds, Channels and Immediate
Adjacent Transitional Areas in the amount of $93,940.00, and authorize the
appropriate officials to execute same.
5. Approve supplemental work order #2, for King Engineering Associates, Inc., to perform
additional Engineering Design Services for the "Pumping Station #15 & #25 -
Refurbishment" project in the amount of $10,485.00 for a new work order total of
$74,063.00, and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same.
6. Approve the amendment of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to restructure
current Stormwater Utility funding by reducing project budgets by $3,049,990 of FY06
revenue bond and $75,000 of stormwater operating revenues, for a total budget
decrease of $3,124,990, and increasing project budgets by $863,000 of grant revenue
from the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD)and $16,000 of
lease purchase revenue for a total budget increase of $879,000, resulting in a net
budget decrease of $2,245,990, and that the appropriate officials be authorized to
execute same
Work Session Agenda 11-29-2004
Page 2 of 4
I
I
Public Utilities
1. Pass Ordinance No. 7321-04 on first reading increasing domestic, lawn water, and
wastewater collection utility rates by 7% effective October 1, 2005, with subsequent 6%
increases to be effective October 1, 2006, October 1, 2007 and October 1, 2008 and
increasing reclaimed water rates by 29.44% effective October 1, 2005, then metering
reclaimed water and implementing the proposed reclaimed water rates that are
projected to result in a 29.44% increase to the average reclaimed water customer
effective October 1, 2006 followed by a 6% increase to those reclaimed water rates
effective October 1, 2007, and October 1, 2008,
Public Services
1. Approve Change Order NO.1 to Trimax Residuals of Edmonton, Alberta, for the
Biosolids Treatment Implementation Digester Cleaning Contract
(03-0022-UT)increasing the contract amount by $518,731.91, for a new contract total
of $998,508.55 ,and approve a time extension of 90 days for the completion of this
work and authorize the approprpiate officials to execute same.
Planning
1. Approve an amendment to the development agreement between the Beachwalk Resort
LLC (fka Clearwater Seashell Resort L.C.) and the City of Clearwater, Adopt Resolution
No. 04-35 and approve restructuring of the funding in Capital Improvement Project
315-92267 (Coronado/S. Gulfview Streetscape) by replacing the $2 million General
Fund Loan with a $2 million loan from the Central Insurance Fund.
Official Rec and Legislative Svc
1. Appoint one member to the Brownfields Advisory Board with the term expiring on
December 31,2008.
City Attorney
1. Adopt Ordinance No. 7344-04 on second reading, annexing certain real property
whose Post Office address is 1705 Thomas Drive in to the corporate limits of the city,
and redefining the boundary lines of the city to include said addition.
2. Adopt Ordinance No. 7345-04 on second reading, amending the future land use plan
of the City to designate the land use for certain real property whose Post Office
address is 1705 Thomas Drive, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as
Residential Low.
3. ADOPT Ordinance No. 7346-04 on second reading, amending the zoning atlas of the
City by zoning certain real property whose Post Office address is 1705 Thomas Drive,
upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR).
4. ADOPT Ordinance No. 7366-04 on second reading, providing for the issuance of gas
system subordinate revenue obligation, as subordinate obligations of the City pursuant
to the City's Ordinance No. 5118-91, to acquire or purchase, directly or indirectly, gas
supply and/or gas production facilities or interest therein; pledging the net revenues of
the system to secure payment of the principal and interest on the subordinate
obligations, providing for the rights of the subordinate holders of such obligations; and
providing for payment thereof.
5. Adopt Ordinance No. 7350-04 on second reading, amending Ordinance 6779-01,
which vacated the 60-foot right of way of Third Street (AKA Third Ave.), bounded on
the east by the Westerly right of way line of Coronado Dr. and bounded on the west by
the easterly right of way line of S. Gulfview Blvd. subject to special conditions.
Work Session Agenda 11-29-2004
Page 3 of 4
6. Adopt Ordinance No. 7351-04 on second reading, amending Ordinance No. 6780-01.
which vacated the east 35 feet of the 70-foot right of way of Gulfview Blvd., bounded
on the north by the westerly extension of a line parallel to and 20 feet north of the
northerly lot line of Lots 57 and 104 of Lloyd-White Skinner subdivision, and bounded
on the south by the westerly extension of the south lot line of Lot 59,
L1oyd-White-Skinner subdivision, subject to special conditions.
Other City Attorney Items
City Manager Verbal Reports
Council Discussion Items
Other Council Action
Adjourn
Presentation(s) for Thursday Night
1. Diversity Council Awards
2. Certificates to Citizen Academy Graduates
3. We Care Fund
Work Session Agenda 11-29-2004
Page 4 of 4
'I
"
",'
l<<~i
I.~..i("fi;. v8fJ
I ,~~\:7/
I._~~':::._~-
:~:~ !'::';:::>Jl "Ii':;;::;:-"J" r~::,<.;vr.'-.l\-.l \-('~b-'lr<
',._ _'_..,'_ _', --1. ~_~u ,,-_.1"-_ ____.. _ ""- j,_---.:'-_ _ --J .._JL_ ___J __J_
Clearwater City Council
November 29, 2004
Construction Plan Status Update
Feature Areas and
Focal Points
. Pier 60 Promenade Plaza/Water Feature
. North Gateway Sign
. Sundial Plaza and Water Feature
. Chess/Backgammon and Sculpture
. South Gateway Plaza and Parking Area
bJb-1
The Current Master Plan
. Revised Master Plan Rendering
. Based on 60% Construction Documents
. On-Going Property Owner Input
. Staff Review
.J - -. J
~ .-.1!'" - - .:..-. '-'-.
..... .f'......:~,,'" t" '.
M ~.....::..Ct.. -- "';' , -.( ~
~,.<1.,;,... :~~~~jfJ~!~~~,._".-- ,:~..ii._.
.~... "'....::..;':.;. -'.-,'ri~,,~.!!b 01 .:: u..-~ ''t~';f'o .
~t..;. ,0,:~;.::.:.:u.~.i.~f"f~~E~~~I!"II..}'~
.~... " "J '~' >~5'i:D~....~.__....0""" 1\'~';,;;",
_~:;"','" .' _~ ~~' I oJ ". 'ig~l .,' "'. -"t
.::,~91._ . ~J _ ~'.;~ . . . r. II-=; O~
./....."t, , I ..r, f'n f; "-i 0 "t ~-i-.;jj;;;;;;"';F; ,,""-
1
.,
2
t
"
~~~' -
>. .,.>~ "~ ~.......> Co ", < -;: - -
'~'>,'l' ~..". ""~
~ l'r.{. ....... .., ;;".,(;;'"'"...., ":' ,.." -
~. '.' ....t.~.H.f ."
':t"')~~' ."..:0 ~
~ ~ ,<~<' ..... ~ ' '. . 1 .,
'f t~. ~~; ,:~W-~(~~.~. .........;CL..<~'..~::~~~"r.j
:....~ ,'iltl'rtid;;:' "1';> . nt;:-;...::.I~ T;~' ...To.>.. ',' lc""~ "/.,.-
:,:-'Q,c..s;l >'T!' ,Ut: 1it:fr:;.tWgq FRJ~~~l*;"~
:_"<'''<; : ".olD m<?"=;! ,_~ ~ u 'lnlJ~ f[~"" '
.: I .. t. n..; "fl~-.i;;i...'. ~ .~=- . "~' < . l}
....1 ~
~......
. '" ";"-.{-
. .. II. M..:.
.... "~'~':"i//"
_ .,.+ J../"';'::. h ~~
. -f'--
'rtJ
3
fp" f-.I- _, ... __/1-1 .; s.tJ
.~~'<-
r""_-4/-'-.I. .;
'-"'...)tJ.J1I~/.
'~fl>4/,,...>..r_,I...;
~""'~I-;tJc... ,
f...,{bt.r..,(~~ot..M~4.
#"-'I "" ....:~. .:...,wc..
r'f}.~~'''''.4f'"",,~''.,1A
.r...~........~Jt.",I.{
1ld tt1':1<1k.-
t)
..-k-
~ #. '"
4
5
6
..
Phase I Construction
BEACH WAlK
PlEA
60
PHASE I
CORONADO DRIVE
4J()5 TO 4.106
,....
Phase II Construction
BEACH WAlK
PIER
60
/1
~r
.
PHASE II
NORTH GULfVIEW BlVD
5106 TO 5107
7
Phase III Construction
BEACH WAlK
PIER
6<l
D =~~ ~lFVrEW BLVD
6107 TO 6108
The Plan
Phase IV Construction
BEACH WALK
PIER
6<l
III ~:'~C~UP
6108 TO 11108
~~
~.. S~/,
rt" ~.....~ ~
I\.~~~~,:"
_______.___.J
r.....-r:-.n.7'{::"", ~7~'-, 1::-~~'~ ~_: f~~~~:--.., ~".~ llil'\~.:-~r j:!.
....::::u..=[~_U '~'.~'~lS.~ 1_~:",,_'~'_~L'i 'i '._}'J_ ~L'~"~
Clearwater City Council
Update Presentation
Questions or Comments
8
}c- \
c:
0
--
....
tn ca
E (.)
tn tn --
CD c:
.... E
c: .... :::J
CD CD tn E
rIj ~
E ....
QJ tn tn E
.- CD ~ 1::=
~ tn (.) tn 0
.- .... C) c: CD (.)
.. c: c: -
CD c: ca 0 ca -'=
Q -- -'= (.)
E .... -- ~
.- CD c: .... ca
.. ca (.)
CD CD CD (.) c: CD
~ C) E ~ -- CD .c
ca 'I- .........
C) -- C) c:
~ C) - ....
- 0 0 .... ;:
.- c: ca CD
eJ - c:
CD :J: 0 E 0
== -'= c: (.) ....
c: UJ c:
= --
.... .J:: - ;:
:::s ;: (.) .c .........
Q ~
0 0 CD :::J ~ 0
U >- ~ ~ Q. ~ C
. . . . . .
rIj
QJ
==
.-
,....
QJ
a
.-
~
It)
C)
C)
~
....
0)
E
E
~
en
1
....
t:
0)
E
0)
C)
ca
C)
t:
0)
..s::
....
~
o
>-
.
It)
18
tn~
C) ~
t: ca
+:i:E
0)........
~~
- C)
ca~
:I:~
t: ca
3= ::s
o t:
I-- ca
. ...,
C)
t:
--
o
C)
t:
o
.
tn
....
t:
0)
E
0)
(.)
t:
ca
..s::
t:
0)
~
C)
o
-
o
t:
..s::
(.)
0)
l-
.
1
tn
E
0)
....
tn
~
tn
t:
o
--
....
ca
(.)
--
....
--
....
o
t:
(.)
--
-
..c
~
D-
.
1
tn
E
0)
....
tn
~
tn
t=
0)
-
ca
~
(.)
It) t: It)
C) 0) C)
C) C) C)
~ .... ~
.... 0) ....
0) E 0)
EWE
E :;:: E
~ ~ ~
en ~ en
tn
CD c:
> 0
fIj -- --
+-II +-II
aJ ca ca
.- -- (.)
+-II
-- --
aJ c: c: tn
-- ::s CD
~ c: E ::s
= -- tn
.. CD E tn
~ - 0 --
0 +-II
00 L- (.) c:
- CD CD
== --
(.) C. tn
~ c: ca c:
::s - - (.) 0
Q 0 tn tn (.)
~ U ~ +-II L-
CD
== CD ca CD CD
c.. +-II
~ c: L- 0
+-II
-- 0 en >
Q "I-
CD ;: . .
~ C l-
. .
m_l
c:: ~ c::
~ C) 0
(1) --
0 .... ....
.... ca ca
c:: L.. (.)
~ C) .... --
tn c::
0 c:: .... ::s
--
-c .... (1) E
(1) (1)
0 ..... (1) E
0 L..
.... E ....
tn tn en 0
(.)
- .... - c::
ca (.) tn (1)
-- (1) L.. --
L.. (1) ca C.
(1) c. -c :E ca
.... tn
ca - (.) it)
ca 0 C)
E tn C)
- ..t: c:: .... C)
aJ - (1) (1)
ca --
-c .... (1) C'I
~ tn
(1) (1) ca -- L.. -
= .... .... c:: >< .... (1)
c:: ca 0 .... tn c::
tn (1)
~ -- (.)
L.. -- (1) ::s
.... (1) (1)
rIJ. c. -2 ca .... ....,
.....- c:: .... (1)
aJ (1) ::s N (1) ca - ~
-- L..
.... E - > c..c
aJ ca ca C) E c::
- (1) E ....... c:: CD
-- 0
.....- L.. > .... o ca
00 0 0 (1) 0 c:: 0-
(.) -
. L.. . . . c.
rIj
~
=
rIj
rIj
.-
......
==
~
rIj
==
Q
~
..
~
......
Q
>
c::
~
o
..... -
c:: -
~ ~
o :::s
-e 0
o ..... ...
.....0 C)
tn tn tn
_..... :::s
.~ (.) (.)
... CD 0'"
CD C. ..... CD
..... tn -.....
ca ca ;.. ca
E = o!
-eea tnea
CD CD CD
..... CD ,... .:- -
s::::: ... - - u
._ ea 0 CD
... (.) . _ tn.....
c. · - ..... :::s
c:: ea ..... 0
S ::s "~ g..s:::::
eaECU-eC)
CD E..... c :::s
<3 o"S; 0 e
.(.)~u.J::
. .....
en
c
a
--
~
:::J
-
a
~
en
Q)
:::J
en
en
--
~
a
(.)
Q)
C
li=
Q)
o
.
c
eo
-
a.
Q)
..c
~
"I-
a
en
~
(.)
Q)
a.
en
eo
Q)
N
--
~
--
L-
a
--
L-
0...
.
L.O
C>
C>
C'I
-
--
L-
a.
~
..c
(.)
L-
eo
~
c
--
en
0)
c
--
~
Q)
Q)
E
c
--
0)
Q)
al
.
r:Ij
QJ
=
r:Ij
r:Ij
.,..
~
=
QJ
r:Ij
=
=
~
J.
QJ
~
=
>
~
~
CD
-
~
-C
CD
.c:
u
fn
.........
CD
c::
--
-
CD fn
E c::
-- 0
..... --
.....
c.ca
0.....
- c::
CD CD
> fn
CD CD
C ~
. c.
.c:
.....
-i
fn _=
c:: fn
o
-- CD
..... .....
ca ca
~ ~
CD-C
> f!
c:: C)
o ~
2 E
c:: CD
CD-C
E ca
c.U
0<
- fn
CD _
> c::
CD CD
-C N
CD~
~ --
. (.)
It)
C)
C)
C'I
~
ca
~
~
.c
CD
LL
c::
--
~
CD
c=
~
fn
CD
-C
-i
~
--
U
_= It)
CDC)
-C~
~-
- --
U ~
c:: c.
-;-<
tn
rI). s:::
0
== tn --
~ ...
Q CI) ca
C) > --
.- .......... -- (.)
..... (Q ... 0
= .......... ca
C'I ... tn
CJ ~ s::: tn
.- 0) CI) ca
== tn ..........
s::: CI) tn
= -- c.
... ~
a CI) c. ::1
CI) CI) 0
a E ~ ~
~ 0) ~
~ CI) ...
Q CI) c. s::: CI)
CJ -c 0 CI) .c
- - -c E
~ 0 CI) ~
-- m
.c > tn ca
CJ CI) CI) CI) > .c ca
...
= ~ c ~ (.) (.) U)
QJ ca . . . . .
...
= U)
.
r:Ij
==
o
.,....
.....
=
~
.,....
==
=
a
a
o
~
~
~
=
QJ
=
..c::
+III
--
3=
tn _=
5 tn
-- (1)
+III +III
ca ca
tn ~
"'-c
(1) ca
> ...
c::: C)
o ~
2 E
c::: (1)
(1)-C
E ca
- c. <e(.)
- 0
ca - tn
:I: (1)_
c::: > c:::
~ (1) (1)
;> "'C N
o (1) +:i
I- 0::::--
. . u
Lf)
C)
C)
C'I
~
ca
~
c:::
ca
..,
-c
(1)
-
~
-c
(1)
..s::
(.)
tn
Lf)
C)
C)
C'I
~
ca
~
....
..c
(1)
LL
c:::
ca
-
C.
tn
c:::
o
--
+III
ca
(.)
--
c:::
~
E
ELf)
OC)
(.)c)
(1)C'I
a;~
- ca
c.~
E ....
o..c
<.}.f
~.
rIj
=
=
.~
~
rIj
aJ
=
OJ
~; PC- i
City of Clearwater - Public Involvement Report & Recommendations
Background
In May 2004, the city of Clearwater conducted a random telephone survey of 400 regular voters.
The questions centered around the public's interest in various components of a proposed
downtown waterfront improvement plan, which failed to pass in a March 2004 referendum as a
"package" of improvements. One of the key findings of this survey was that voters preferred
more, not less, information on projects and that citizens seemed to desire an active dialogue with
the city on projects and priorities.
As a result, the Public Communications Department was asked to provide recommendations on
future strategies for public engagement. This report provides suggestions for consideration, with
the reminder that every service enhancement requires a repositioning or reallocation of resources
in order to fully implement.
This report is not intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of current public information
processes, but rather to look at existing processes and provide recommendations that will
improve or complement those activities.
Methodology
The Public Communications Department met with department directors and staff who have been
actively involved in some of the city's most high-profile projects over the last few years to
determine if there were some commonalities between each project that may have affected the
public's perception of each. The department also looked at best practices from other cities around
the nation through resources like the Innovation Group and the City/County Communications
and Marketing Association (3CMA).
Information Dissemination, Public Participation
and Official Notification
The recommendations included here fall in to three basic categories of involvement:
Information dissemination
Public participation
Official notification
Each of these plays a part in keeping citizens actively engaged in local government. Information
dissemination consists mainly of one-way communication with citizens. The city's Annual
Report, regular publications like C-News or ClP Update, media releases and regular programming
on C-VIEW 15 are examples of information dissemination. Some project information meetings
and Town Hall meetings could fall under this category, as well, depending on the extent of actual
public dialogue allowed for during those meetings.
Public participation includes public hearings, public meetings, workshops and other forums that
provide citizens with an opportunity to provide meaningful input toward government decisions.
The key elements of successful public participation are: 1) two-way dialogue, 2) ongoing
feedback, and 3) adequate notification and flexibility for multiple avenues of input.
- ---l
Official notification could be considered part of the public participation process, but should be
considered as a separate element, since not all official notification necessarily leads to active
public participation. Official notification is, however, one of the only elements considered here
that is in most cases legally mandated by either local, regional or state legislative action.
Information Dissemination
The city currently has a wide variety of tools for providing information to citizens. The Public
Communications Department coordinates most of these communication efforts. These include:
Biweekly C-News advertisement in the St. Petersburg Times
Quarterly CIP Update newsletter
Media releases
Annual Report
Citizen's Academy
Sunshine Lines utility bill newsletter
C- VIEW programming and meeting coverage
C-Mail e-mail newsletter distribution
City website, www.myclearwater.com
Production and distribution of program brochures, flyers and promotional materials
Targeted marketing campaigns (for events, elections, special projects, etc.)
Speaking engagements with neighborhood and civic groups
In addition, each department may have additional means of distributing information, from the
Parks and Recreation Department's FITS Magazine to the Police Department's monthly Blueline
newsletter. In this respect, the city of Clearwater is providing a fairly high level of service.
Residents have a variety of choices in how they receive information, and critical information is
distributed in a timely manner.
If there is a shortcoming in our current communication efforts, it is that most require the resident
to "find" information or "opt-in" to distribution lists. No single communication piece is distributed
city-wide on a regular basis.
Recommendations:
Neighborhood communication
One way to meet the challenge of direct communication to residents is to regionalize
information and reconsider the distribution of a neighborhood newsletter directly to
residents' homes. The newsletter could be distributed according to the seven regional
boundaries established by Development & Neighborhood Services Department, and
would include information of citywide interest, complemented by information on
projects specific to the region in which they live. The challenge in doing this has always
been cost, as the price of distribution to 50,000+ households on a meaningful schedule
can be high (about $50,000 annually, plus printing costs).
Regular presentationsfSpeakers' bureau
Establish a schedule of regular presentations to Clearwater civic groups on items of
current interest/importance to residents and businesses. The challenge is to identify a set
of core subjects of interest and primary presenters for each. The first choice for these
types of presentations is almost always a Councilmember, but this may become
prohibitive if the city actively solicits opportunities to speak. This would require more
thorough examination if the city chooses to move forward with it.
The benefit of this type of engagement is that it generally reaches community members
who already have a sense of civic responsibility, but may not understand the details of
particular projects or activities the city is involved with.
Public Participation
Public presentations have been the traditional "bread and butter" of civic involvement. What
we've found over time, though, is that we have an increasingly difficult time getting citizens to
attend public meetings. We've also heard on several occasions that the public feels that, while
public presentations do offer a chance for input, it is not necessarily acted upon afterwards.
While we have had successes in certain cases with public meetings and project planning, getting
residents to participate remains a moving target. In many cases, involvement can be tracked
directly to personal interest in a subject and/ or ability to influence for meaningful change. The
hope is that by lowering the barriers to entry and rethinking the process, we may be able to
increase public knowledge, if not involvement, in these processes.
An important fact to remember is that public presentations do not equate to public participation.
By their very nature, they can quickly establish a "we" and "they" environment that isn't
conducive to public dialogue. This could, in fact, be part of the reason that we often have
difficulty getting citizens to attend these forums. Another challenge is the continued engagement
of affected residents throughout the project planning process.
Currently, the city conducts project planning meetings with affected neighborhoods at the outset
of the project and again when 30% drawings are complete. The challenge with this schedule is
that many residents may not understand or realize the scope of a project at its outset. As a result,
very few residents come out to some of these initial meetings. This is much more prevalent for
smaller projects than larger ones, where there may be multiple conceptual meetings before design
begins. Their next chance for input is upon completion of 30% drawings, at which point they can
see the scope of the project. This gives residents something to react to and, at times, they do so in
a negative manner.
Typically, the larger projects are discussed in a formal presentation format, smaller projects may
have 3-5 staffed stations where residents can get questions answered. These are usually followed
up with another meeting at the 30% stage to address any perceived issues. What seems to be
missing from the process is a formal mechanism for continued one-on-one communication after
this point. Project managers (or the contractor) are in contact with residents as needed, but
information is not always relayed to affected residents in a timely manner unless they are vocal
in their requests. In some cases, the next time a member of the neighborhood learns anything of
the status of the project, it's when the contract is to be awarded.
It's important to note that project managers have been good about staying in direct contact with a
designated neighborhood representative if they express the desire to be involved. But it's
uncertain if this contact is fully informing or accurately representing his or her neighbors in the
process.
Recommendations:
Town Hall meetings
Re-establish the Town Hall meeting schedule, but design them around the most salient
issues of the moment, and design them to maximize one-to-one interaction with
Councilmembers and senior staff members. Clearly define the objective and anticipated
outcomes of the meeting at the outset and actively engage citizens. Provide some
mechanism to provide feedback reports after the meeting to those who have participated.
Offer them other opportunities to get involved, and keep them involved. Citizens need to
know that their participation has had some meaningful effect on the city's decision-
making processes.
Project presentations
This process could be improved in two areas. First, the actual forum for public input, like
that of Town Hall meetings, doesn't necessarily facilitate active, meaningful feedback.
Studies have shown that most citizens tend toward a debate-style model of discussion
rather than a collaborative style of discussion. It is our responsibility to establish and
maintain formats that move toward a more collaborative model. It is difficult to establish
common goals and consensus in a traditional public presentation setting, which places
parties opposite each other in a room, thus fostering a debate-centered approach. Small
group discussions on smaller projects and facilitated focus group discussions on larger
issues may be more effective if the project requires public feedback and buy-in.
Second, there should be some mechanism for continual feedback after the 30% meetings.
This could be person-to-person contact, direct mail, door hangers or local association
newsletters. These are covered in more detail in the next two recommendations. Some
continued feedback loop should be in place, even if the fundamentals of the project aren't
likely to change. One of the reasons that affected residents push back against projects is
that they don't feel included in the process. This would help mitigate some of these issues
by demonstrating a desire to communicate and, when possible, accommodate within
reasonable means.
Personalized contact
Active, ongoing involvement with affected parties is vital to successful project
management. It does come with its limitations, though. Keeping several dozen merchants
on Mandalay Avenue in the loop is much easier than doing the same with a project that
may affect hundreds (or thousands) of homes. The same level of face-to-face interaction
is challenging without a significant outlay of resources. It takes considerably more time
to knock on dozens doors to explain the timeline for an upcoming reclaimed water
project than it does to send dozens of letters announcing a public meeting, to which only
a handful of the affected residents attend.
What is important is that residents have a central point of contact for the project, and that
information is provided in a real-time manner that fosters two-way communication.
While Engineering has an assigned project manager for every project, that project
manager's time is primarily spent managing the technical aspects of the job. On larger
projects (Mandalay, Causeway Bridge) communication is facilitated through a project
hotline where residents can call with questions or concerns. It would be helpful to have
someone whose primary responsibility is to act as an "ombudsman" of sorts on projects. It
would be someone who knows the key neighborhood contacts as well as the latest project
information, and would actively engage the residents throughout the planning, design
and construction processes.
The challenge in doing this is assigning primary responsibility and allocating appropriate
resources, whether it is the department originating the project, Public Communications,
Neighborhood Services or some other department.
Neighborhood communication
An alternative, and less personal, option would be to use the existing regional
neighborhood "sectors" and provide a regular, monthly newsletter to each, detailing the
status of projects within that area of the city (see full explanation in previous section).
The advantage of this method is that it would be an avenue for providing other
important information to residents beyond just current projects.
Establish a plan
There should be a standardized plan for communicating on/ about projects affecting
neighborhoods. Currently, much of the initial burden for communicating construction
issues to neighbors lies with the hired contractor, per the city's Project Planning Manual.
Once the project commences, city staff is responsible for ongoing interaction and
resolution of issues. While this should work in theory, contractors often fail to keep city
project mangers up to speed on projects, much less the affected public.
The existing planning manual provides a good start, but may need to strengthen the
emphasis on communication, from public notices to project presentations to update
procedures, and clarify responsibilities. Implemented effectively, a strong plan can
minimize negative reactions and help to build neighborhood connections. The challenge
is getting the contractor to play along - some are much better than others in this respect.
Citizen Notification
As previously mentioned, citizen notification is one of the only legally required methods of
communication with residents. This legal requirement can come with an unanticipated burden,
though. Posted legal notices can be difficult for citizens to read or understand the consequences
of the proposed action of which they are being noticed. This can diminish its value as a
communications tool, and can lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretation that creates
difficulties for both residents and for staff before any public meeting is held on the subject.
The challenge is to determine exactly what is legally required, and how these messages can be
condensed to reader-friendly, easily understandable notices that motivate involvement.
Recommendations:
Public Hearing notification
The Public Communications Department recently had the opportunity to judge for a
national awards program organized by the City/County Communications and
Marketing Association (3CMA). One. of the entries was an innovative public notification
system designed by the city of Scottsdale, Arizona. The automated system provided
streamlined postcards for notification of public hearings on zoning/land use or other
changes that may affect neighborhoods. Public Communications has had some
preliminary discussions with Information Technology on the possibility of replicating
this project locally. If feasible, this shift in notification methods could reduce staff time
and mailing costs, while increasing citizen awareness.
Public Hearing advertising
A consistent criticism of Clearwater when it comes to noticing meetings, hearings and
other legally required advertising is that they only appear in the Tampa Tribune, which
has a very low circulation in Pinellas County - under 19,000 countywide. While these
advertisements meet the legal requirement for notices, they don't necessarily achieve the
core objective, which is public awareness. The difficulty is that the same advertising in
the St. Petersburg Times, which has a Clearwater circulation of over 50,000, costs from
three to four times as much. This is a financial consideration that cannot be overlooked.
On an annual basis, this would increase the City Clerk's advertising budget by $80,000 to
$90,000 per year. If negotiated, the increase could be brought down to $60,000 to $80,000.
Other considerations: Technology and constituency building
For the purposes of a full discussion, these two categories are presented separately. The first,
technology, covers aspects of all three areas of public engagement. The second takes a longer-
term view in how best to educate and motivate potential voters to participate in the process.
Technological tools
Explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of technology as it relates to this particular subject.
Recommendations:
Customer service tracking system
Information Technology and Customer Service are currently working on a (Customer
Relationship Management (CRM) system that will allow Customer Service to log, track
and provide better response to citizen inquiries. The system will allow staff to enter
inquiries in to the system, route them to the appropriate city representative, then follow
the status of the inquiry to conclusion. In the future, this system may serve as the
foundation for a larger "knowledge-base" system that would build a database of
customer inquiries and appropriate responses.
3-1-1
This system is best applied countywide, and it presents a great opportunity to provide
enhanced real-time service to residents. A single-call service center, the most effective
3-1-1 systems combine knowledge base software, tracking systems, dedicated staff and
expanded hours for support. Startup costs for an effective 3-1-1 system are fairly high,
and 3-1-1 is subdivided by area code, not by city. Without participation from the majority
of Pinellas communities, it would be prohibitive for Clearwater to address this on its
own. This is further complicated by the fact that St. Petersburg currently holds the local
rights to the number.
If successfully implemented, though, the 3-1-1 system has the potential to significantly
streamline citizen response times and to provide measurable, ongoing feedback.
Online "Quick Polls"
Public Communications and Information Technology are currently working on a system
that would allow the city to conduct online opinion polls from the home page of the city
website. Updated and reported monthly, these polls would consist of a single question
and a window for comments. This would provide a quick "straw poll" on subjects
currently under debate by the Council, like downtown traffic (Do you think parking
should be removed from Cleveland Street?) or Coachman events (Do you think the city
should do more, smaller events or continue to provide larger concerts?).
While the results are nonscientific, they do provide an additional avenue for comments
by those who may not have the time or desire to attend other types of meetings. Like the
recent downtown redevelopment survey, respondents would be limited to a single vote,
or could be verified through a pre-registration system.
Online surveys
Clearwater's first online survey could be considered a success. Over 300 individuals
completed the survey, and over 250 indicated a willingness to participate in future focus
groups on downtown redevelopment. While the data collected from online surveys
cannot be considered statistically viable, it does provide additional insight from residents
who may not otherwise participate in government. It also provides additional anecdotal
comments that can give decision makers further perspective on issues.
Any public surveys should continue to be translated for the web whenever possible. In
addition to the feedback, this forum allows us to continue building a database of citizens
interested in future engagement activities (almost 300 signed up for future information as
a result of the last online survey). The key, as with many of these recommendations, is to
be sure to keep them involved and informed after their initial contact.
Instant feedback tools
This could include integrated "comment cards" attached to each project description
online. I.T. has already built this interface in to the project update pages, which are
managed by Engineering, but is holding off on launching them until the new CRM
system is in place. This will help the city avoid duplication of efforts on project inquiries.
Once established, the location of this page can be incorporated in to any communications
to neighborhoods on a particular project. This achieves two things: First, it points
residents to the site for project updates; and second, it gives residents a forum for
immediate comment. The key to making this successful is monitoring and timely
response to questions and comments generated by the site.
GIS project notification/information
Provide an interactive map linked to project information based on a map, so residents
can easily identify projects near their home that may affect them. Chandler, Arizona has
integrated their GIS system with their long-range capital plan to provide residents,
businesses and prospective residents with an idea of where and when infrastructure
projects will take place. The city currently has project information posted, but no
geographic reference for neighborhoods to identify what's happening immediately
around them. Integrating a mapped system in to the existing project update pages will
allow residents to more easily access this information. This could also be used for
information on pending development proposals in the Planning Department.
Constituency building
The best examples of the constituency building function in public engagement for Clearwater are
the Neighborhood Services Division, Main Street and the Citizen's Academy. These functions
help to organize groups of citizens and motivate them to increase involvement in local
government affairs. These programs help to break down the barriers that can impede regular
citizens from becoming involved. By facilitating the communication between these
constituencies, we can help to build a more informed, involved public in Clearwater.
Recommendations:
Facilitate connections
We have a responsibility to continue to foster forums outside of direct government
involvement for the sharing of ideas and taking action on a grassroots level. Both local
organizations and regional/national organizations like the League of Women Voters,
Creative Tampa Bay and the National Conference for Community and Justice have the
capacity to engage the public in a way that government may not be able to. The results of
their involvement can give the city a more complete perspective on local issues. They
also have the capacity to organize constituencies around issues in a way that is clearly
outside of the governmental spectrum. Fostering these types of forums will help with the
free flow of ideas when considering Clearwater's direction.
Youth involvement
Eleven percent of Clearwater's population is between 15 and 24 years of age, yet their
involvement in civic affairs locally is extremely low. This is not necessarily unique to
Clearwater, but other communities have found ways to significantly raise the awareness
and involvement of this age group through comprehensive youth involvement
initiatives. While we currently have youth involved on a "micro" scale in Parks and
Recreation, Library and working with Neighborhood Services projects, we don't have a
mechanism to get meaningful input from young people on a more comprehensive scale.
Devising a well-organized youth council with input on projects and future planning
provides the city with a different perspective, and helps to build the next generation of
public leaders. They can also help to motivate young voters to the polls for local
elections.
Downtown strategies
With the number and potential impact of downtown construction projects due to begin in the
next 18 months, an effort must be made to better communicate how each piece fits in to the
whole. Interestingly, the top five "decision factors" regarding the future of downtown had to do
with information, not with processes. Respondents want information on funding, specific design,
exclusions (what will and won't be included in the project), benefits and overall vision. It shows
that past efforts at improvement may have more to do with information and engagement than
with the substance of the plan.
The delays related to bridge construction provide a unique opportunity to spend an extended
period fine-tuning plans and prioritizing elements in the plan. It also gives us the opportunity to
more clearly articulate the benefits of the plan and how the improvements fit in to the overall
vision for the city. The results of the online redevelopment survey clearly showed interest from
citizens in participating in the process, as more than 250 of the respondents gave mailing
addresses for involvement in future planning for downtown.
Recommendations:
Focus groups
Facilitated focus groups can help to build understanding and consensus on priorities
relating to downtown. They also provide an opportunity for citizens to engage one
another and, hopefully, form some consensus based on shared goals. While there's no
way to expect all citizens to agree on all things, this type of forum helps to smooth out
some of the rough edges created by a lack of understanding or a feeling of exclusion from
the process. In a best-case scenario, it can also help build champions for the project inside
neighborhoods and identify key leaders for future involvement. As is done with project
planning meetings, participants should receive some form of ongoing communication
after the process to keep them involved, engaged and in the loop.
Downtown branding campaign
Several communities, including San Diego and Greensboro, NC, have conducted
successful campaigns to put a "look" and "feel" to the activities taking place in their
downtowns during periods of significant construction and redevelopment. The
motivation for branding the downtown was to show how each project physically fits in
to the overall vision from downtown. Today, few residents may understand how Myrtle
construction ties to downtown redevelopment, or how private residential construction
fits in to the planning process for the downtown waterfront. Common signage for
projects that tie them to downtown, and common design elements carried through other
communication materials, can help reinforce the synergy between all of these projects.
A publication that details the entire downtown plan/ projects and how they all fit
together, including how certain decisions have been/ are made, what the challenges are
and what the long-term vision is should be part of this campaign. A decision must be
made regarding whether to create a new publication for this purpose, or to utilize an
existing publication such as Main Street Update for this purpose.
Regular presentations
How the downtown pieces fit together should be a key subject for future presentations to
civic groups. This can be incorporated in to print, video and promotional materials
related to the branding campaign.
Conclusions
As with any initiative, there are time and cost considerations. In addition, some of these
recommendations require a shift in organizational approaches toward the community. The hope
is that, through discussion, these proposals can be reviewed and prioritized for action. We must
identify where the responsibility lies, what we're willing to fund and clearly define the processes
so that everyone understands their role. In an environment of limited resources, it can be a
challenge for an engineer, planner or a project coordinator to also fill the role of public liaison,
information distributor and consultant. This is not necessarily due to a lack of interest as much as
a lack of time or resources to fulfill this role.
There has been some discussion of engaging consultants to facilitate the citizen engagement
process. While consultants certainly have value, there is a potential for resistance by residents
due to the cost associated with their services. The argument has been made that engaging the
public and understanding their issues should be the responsibility of the city's leaders, and not
that of a consultant who may not have the same connection to the community. There are also
inherent trust issues, in that some citizens believe that consultants' results may be influenced by
the hiring organization.
Actively engaging the public throughout any project can be time-consuming and, at times,
frustrating, and no initiative will completely eliminate negative feedback. These proposals are
designed to mitigate and manage that feedback and provide additional public perspective for city
leaders and elected officials. We should also be mindful that, in many cases, additional projects
bring with them additional costs, either in staff time or funding. This is the first step in deciding
how best to increase our dialogue.
~; PC,l
City of Clearwater - Public Involvement Report & Recommendations
Background
In May 2004, the city of Clearwater conducted a random telephone survey of 400 regular voters.
The questions centered around the public's interest in various components of a proposed
downtown waterfront improvement plan, which failed to pass in a March 2004 referendum as a
"package" of improvements. One of the key findings of this survey was that voters preferred
more, not less, information on projects and that citizens seemed to desire an active dialogue with
the city on projects and priorities.
As a result, the Public Communications Department was asked to provide recommendations on
future strategies for public engagement. This report provides suggestions for consideration, with
the reminder that every service enhancement requires a repositioning or reallocation of resources
in order to fully implement.
This report is not intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of current public information
processes, but rather to look at existing processes and provide recommendations that will
improve or complement those activities.
Methodology
The Public Communications Department met with department directors and staff who have been
actively involved in some of the city's most high-profile projects over the last few years to
determine if there were some commonalities between each project that may have affected the
public's perception of each. The department also looked at best practices from other cities around
the nation through resources like the Innovation Group and the City/County Communications
and Marketing Association (3CMA).
Information Dissemination, Public Participation
and Official Notification
The recommendations included here fall in to three basic categories of involvement:
Information dissemination
Public participation
Official notification
Each of these plays a part in keeping citizens actively engaged in local government. Information
dissemination consists mainly of one-way communication with citizens. The city's Annual
Report, regular publications like C-News or CIP Update, media releases and regular programming
on C-VIEW 15 are examples of information dissemination. Some project information meetings
and Town Hall meetings could fall under this category, as well, depending on the extent of actual
public dialogue allowed for during those meetings.
Public participation includes public hearings, public meetings, workshops and other forums that
provide citizens with an opportunity to provide meaningful input toward government decisions.
The key elements of successful public participation are: 1) two-way dialogue, 2) ongoing
feedback, and 3) adequate notification and flexibility for multiple avenues of input.
The benefit of this type of engagement is that it generally reaches community members
who already have a sense of civic responsibility, but may not understand the details of
particular projects or activities the city is involved with.
Public Participation
Public presentations have been the traditional "bread and butter" of civic involvement. What
we've found over time, though, is that we have an increasingly difficult time getting citizens to
attend public meetings. We've also heard on several occasions that the public feels that, while
public presentations do offer a chance for input, it is not necessarily acted upon afterwards.
While we have had successes in certain cases with public meetings and project planning, getting
residents to participate remains a moving target. In many cases, involvement can be tracked
directly to personal interest in a subject and/ or ability to influence for meaningful change. The
hope is that by lowering the barriers to entry and rethinking the process, we may be able to
increase public knowledge, if not involvement, in these processes.
An important fact to remember is that public presentations do not equate to public participation.
By their very nature, they can quickly establish a "we" and "they" environment that isn't
conducive to public dialogue. This could, in fact, be part of the reason that we often have
difficulty getting citizens to attend these forums. Another challenge is the continued engagement
of affected residents throughout the project planning process.
Currently, the city conducts project planning meetings with affected neighborhoods at the outset
of the project and again when 30% drawings are complete. The challenge with this schedule is
that many residents may not understand or realize the scope of a project at its outset. As a result,
very few residents come out to some of these initial meetings. This is much more prevalent for
smaller projects than larger ones, where there may be multiple conceptual meetings before design
begins. Their next chance for input is upon completion of 30% drawings, at which point they can
see the scope of the project. This gives residents something to react to and, at times, they do so in
a negative manner.
Typically, the larger projects are discussed in a formal presentation format, smaller projects may
have 3-5 staffed stations where residents can get questions answered. These are usually followed
up with another meeting at the 30% stage to address any perceived issues. What seems to be
missing from the process is a formal mechanism for continued one-on-one communication after
this point. Project managers (or the contractor) are in contact with residents as needed, but
information is not always relayed to affected residents in a timely manner unless they are vocal
in their requests. In some cases, the next time a member of the neighborhood learns anything of
the status of the project, it's when the contract is to be awarded.
It's important to note that project managers have been good about staying in direct contact with a
designated neighborhood representative if they express the desire to be involved. But it's
uncertain if this contact is fully informing or accurately representing his or her neighbors in the
process.
Recommendations:
Town Hall meetings .
Re-establish the Town Hall meeting schedule, but design them around the most salient
issues of the moment, and design them to maximize one-to-one interaction with
Councilmembers and senior staff members. Clearly define the objective and anticipated
An alternative, and less personal, option would be to use the existing regional
neighborhood "sectors" and provide a regular, monthly newsletter to each, detailing the
status of projects within that area of the city (see full explanation in previous section).
The advantage of this method is that it would be an avenue for providing other
important information to residents beyond just current projects.
Establish a plan
There should be a standardized plan for communicating on/ about projects affecting
neighborhoods. Currently, much of the initial burden for communicating construction
issues to neighbors lies with the hired contractor, per the city's Project Planning Manual.
Once the project commences, city staff is responsible for ongoing interaction and
resolution of issues. While this should work in theory, contractors often fail to keep city
project mangers up to speed on projects, much less the affected public.
The existing planning manual provides a good start, but may need to strengthen the
emphasis on communication, from public notices to project presentations to update
procedures, and clarify responsibilities. Implemented effectively, a strong plan can
minimize negative reactions and help to build neighborhood connections. The challenge
is getting the contractor to play along - some are much better than others in this respect.
Citizen Notification
As previously mentioned, citizen notification is one of the only legally required methods of
communication with residents. This legal requirement can come with an unanticipated burden,
though. Posted legal notices can be difficult for citizens to read or understand the consequences
of the proposed action of which they are being noticed. This can diminish its value as a
communications tool, and can lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretation that creates
difficulties for both residents and for staff before any public meeting is held on the subject.
The challenge is to determine exactly what is legally required, and how these messages can be
condensed to reader-friendly, easily understandable notices that motivate involvement.
Recommendations:
Public Hearing notification
The Public Communications Department recently had the opportunity to judge for a
national awards program organized by the City/County Communications and
Marketing Association (3CMA). One. of the entries was an innovative public notification
system designed by the city of Scottsdale, Arizona. The automated system provided
streamlined postcards for notification of public hearings on zoning/land use or other
changes that may affect neighborhoods. Public Communications has had some
preliminary discussions with Information Technology on the possibility of replicating
this project locally. If feasible, this shift in notification methods could reduce staff time
and mailing costs, while increasing citizen awareness.
Public Hearing advertising
A consistent criticism of Clearwater when it comes to noticing meetings, hearings and
other legally required advertising is that they only appear in the Tampa Tribune, which
has a very low circulation in Pinellas County - under 19,000 countywide. While these
advertisements meet the legal requirement for notices, they don't necessarily achieve the
core objective, which is public awareness. The difficulty is that the same advertising in
the St. Petersburg Times, which has a Clearwater circulation of over 50,000, costs from
Online surveys
Clearwater's first online survey could be considered a success. Over 300 individuals
completed the survey, and over 250 indicated a willingness to participate in future focus
groups on downtown redevelopment. While the data collected from online surveys
cannot be considered statistically viable, it does provide additional insight from residents
who may not otherwise participate in government. It also provides additional anecdotal
comments that can give decision makers further perspective on issues.
Any public surveys should continue to be translated for the web whenever possible. In
addition to the feedback, this forum allows us to continue building a database of citizens
interested in future engagement activities (almost 300 signed up for future information as
a result of the last online survey). The key, as with many of these recommendations, is to
be sure to keep them involved and informed after their initial contact.
Instant feedback tools
This could include integrated "comment cards" attached to each project description
online. LT. has already built this interface in to the project update pages, which are
managed by Engineering, but is holding off on launching them until the new CRM
system is in place. This will help the city avoid duplication of efforts on project inquiries.
Once established, the location of this page can be incorporated in to any communications
to neighborhoods on a particular project. This achieves two things: First, it points
residents to the site for project updates; and second, it gives residents a forum for
immediate comment. The key to making this successful is monitoring and timely
response to questions and comments generated by the site.
GIS project notificationjinformation
Provide an interactive map linked to project information based on a map, so residents
can easily identify projects near their home that may affect them. Chandler, Arizona has
integrated their GIS system with their long-range capital plan to provide residents,
businesses and prospective residents with an idea of where and when infrastructure
projects will take place. The city currently has project information posted, but no
geographic reference for neighborhoods to identify what's happening immediately
around them. Integrating a mapped system in to the existing project update pages will
allow residents to more easily access this information. This could also be used for
information on pending development proposals in the Planning Department.
Constituency building
The best examples of the constituency building function in public engagement for Clearwater are
the Neighborhood Services Division, Main Street and the Citizen's Academy. These functions
help to organize groups of citizens and motivate them to increase involvement in local
government affairs. These programs help to break down the barriers that can impede regular
citizens from becoming involved. By facilitating the communication between these
constituencies, we can help to build a more informed, involved public in Clearwater.
Recommendations:
Facilitate connections
We have a responsibility to continue to foster forums outside of direct government
involvement for the sharing of ideas and taking action on a grassroots level. Both local
organizations and regional/national organizations like the League of Women Voters,
Several communities, including San Diego and Greensboro, NC, have conducted
successful campaigns to put a "look" and "feel" to the activities taking place in their
downtowns during periods of significant construction and redevelopment. The
motivation for branding the downtown was to show how each project physically fits in
to the overall vision from downtown. Today, few residents may understand how Myrtle
construction ties to downtown redevelopment, or how private residential construction
fits in to the planning process for the downtown waterfront. Common signage for
projects that tie them to downtown, and common design elements carried through other
communication materials, can help reinforce the synergy between all of these projects.
A publication that details the entire downtown plan/projects and how they all fit
together, including how certain decisions have been/ are made, what the challenges are
and what the long-term vision is should be part of this campaign. A decision must be
made regarding whether to create a new publication for this purpose, or to utilize an
existing publication such as Main Street Update for this purpose.
Regular presentations
How the downtown pieces fit together should be a key subject for future presentations to
civic groups. This can be incorporated in to print, video and promotional materials
related to the branding campaign.
Conclusions
As with any initiative, there are time and cost considerations. In addition, some of these
recommendations require a shift in organizational approaches toward the community. The hope
is that, through discussion, these proposals can be reviewed and prioritized for action. We must
identify where the responsibility lies, what we're willing to fund and clearly define the processes
so that everyone understands their role. In an environment of limited resources, it can be a
challenge for an engineer, planner or a project coordinator to also fill the role of public liaison,
information distributor and consultant. This is not necessarily due to a lack of interest as much as
a lack of time or resources to fulfill this role.
There has been some discussion of engaging consultants to facilitate the citizen engagement
process. While consultants certainly have value, there is a potential for resistance by residents
due to the cost associated with their services. The argument has been made that engaging the
public and understanding their issues should be the responsibility of the city's leaders, and not
that of a consultant who may not have the same connection to the community. There are also
inherent trust issues, in that some citizens believe that consultants' results may be influenced by
the hiring organization.
Actively engaging the public throughout any project can be time-consuming and, at times,
frustrating, and no initiative will completely eliminate negative feedback. These proposals are
designed to mitigate and manage that feedback and provide additional public perspective for city
leaders and elected officials. We should also be mindful that, in many cases, additional projects
bring with them additional costs, either in staff time or funding. This is the first step in deciding
how best to increase our dialogue.
'.
eN;
t1a'WaJ -ek- II t? lr /I) e.
/2v~4-
December 2, 2004
Dear Representatives of Clearwater's Government:
The following communications are conveyed to you.
A three-minute presentation written rather than spoken is attached.
A brief description is given of recent efforts to resolve issues with the Church of
Scientology with recent.
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) tells me that the example I give to
you is extortion. Making a case in court of law is different than saying something is an
example. The concern of the FDLE is making a case.
I am also told that the FDLE cannot approach an individual to ask if there is a complaint.
The individual must originate the complaint to make a secure case. Mr. Lance De Marcor
has a similar situation to mine. If he agrees to make a complaint this would make a case
for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. If Mr. Lance De Marcor complains then
all his Scientology students will be removed from his school and his school business will
be closed by a Scientology justice action. Mr. De Marcor will be caught in the middle but
I do not believe he will lie especially with the many supporting documents.
I am also told that if Scientology is found guilty of such a felony then the IRS will cancel
the church's religious status. That means an enormous legal fight.
Sincerely,
Randy J. Payne
December 2, 2004
Good Evening Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,
My name is Randy Payne. I am a Clearwater resident and downtown property owner. I
am also a teacher of math, science and English and have taught in eight different
countries. Both my parents were teachers. I have taught 1,000s of students and 100s of
teachers.
The question I bring before you today is: -
"Is it a criminal act if the Church of Scientology uses its justice system to enforce the
taking of money from private individual for teaching or using their own materials?"
The reason I bring this before you is because the Church of Scientology has become a
regulatory agency in downtown Clearwater. It has determined standards used in everyday
business and life. I believe those standards and how the Church of Scientology enforces
those standards is the responsibility of Clearwater's government to understand and
restrict, especially if criminal.
I have presented three different examples where the Scientology justice system has gone
after the families of individuals for business reasons.
In 1988 I was taught by Professor Don Gum a special way to teach English as a second
language. Professor Don Gum was teacher and advisor to the Los Angeles school system
for over 25 years. He taught English as a second language in over twenty-two countries.
Between 1993 and 1997 I created a Hungarian network of English as a second language
schools. At the end of 1997 I refused to pay Scientology ten percent of my gross income
for an area that they were not expert.
Over the last seven years I have been through eight different Scientology justice
committees. Each committee violating Scientology justice procedures and each
committee not understanding English as a second language.
At the last committee this year, I requested two witnesses do prove the above points.
Lance De Marcor, a local Clearwater school owner, and Emil Proest, a Scientology
justice representative who upset Lance's wife. My requests were refused. This committee
lied stating that no Scientology justice actions were taken regarding Lance paying ten
percent. The attached document proves otherwise.
My accusation can be proven my taking to Mr. Lance De Marcor and reviewing the
Scientology justice documents.
Sincerely, Randy J. Payne
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION
. CHAIRMAN: Conan Royce
SECRETARY: Valerie Sigal 42-9. ~
MEMBER: Cosima Passaro
The Committee has 7 days to Ji,J&te its inv
an4._~ecomm~pdalt,~:ms in issuable fQ{tlJJ8;;~.t <;~~;v~
SS56
I L
,
. ~r;'
FSO ETHICS ORDER 7686
FSO
INFO: RTC FLB
CMOCW
SNR Beo FLB
BOARD OF INVESTIGATION
LANCI~: DE MARCOR - SCIE~TOLOGIST
;
Lance De Marcol', of Clearwater Florida, is hereby called before a Board of
Investigation.
. . 'f.',
There are reports that Lance had been setting a bad example as a Scientologi~jni. .
the field and as a result was given a program to do to become qualified for Flagservi~e~.,
In addition there is data from Lance that he is running a school that is based . ~rt
Scientology principle of KRC and other basic Scientology principles and that
program is delivered by Scientology ministers. However, he is not licensed by App
Scholastics and per data to hand has refused to be so licensed and feels that it is inc '
to reql1est that he do so. Until 3 I May he was licensed under IHELP but this do .
cover running a school and that license has run out as well. J
~~., ill'
LRH says in HCO PL 4 June 1966, BOARD OF INVESTIGATION:;.'
purpose of a Bmll'd of Investigation is: >.X
"TO HELP LRH I>ISCOVER THE CAUSE IN ANY CONFLICT, pooR'
PERFORMANCE OR DOWN STATISTIC." - LRH ' k "
;h;.:~~f
:::~R,':~:;;:-',:
A Board of Investigation is being called to look into the above and deteI1~~~,;
whether or not it was tme that Lance was setting a bad example as a Scientologist~:a
whether or not he is running a school that needs to be licensed under applied scholastibS.
The Board shall consist of:
and submit their
oritv. ..'
" I !!I~~~r.~ln"I!"~~I'1~"~ I, .
Ii _1 ' ,
CHIEF STUDENT MAA FSO
for
LRH COMMUNICATOR FSO
CONVENING AUTHORITY
----.
..
December 1, 2004
To Allen Cartwright (Office of Special Affairs Clearwater)
Via Wally Pope:
We have reached an impasse.
I have asked over the last two months for you to clarify a simple legal point.
Is it a criminal act if the Church of Scientology uses its justice system to enforce the
taking of money for educational materials and teaching not within its area of trademarks
or quality control?
We agreed that the Church of Scientology and Applied Scholastics made a mistake by
claiming the areas of education, such as: English as a second language, Chemistry, and
general academic subject came under the church's trademark and quality control. The
church and Applied Scholastics did not maintain expert staff in these areas nor did it
create materials in these areas.
I paid ten percent as was asked by Applied Scholastics. I stop $5,000 going to Applied
Scholastics at the end of 1997 while negotiation were going on with ED Applied
Scholastics Int., Joann Tokano. Mike Elis, International Justice Chief, ordered me to
repay that $5,000 or be declared a suppressive person.
It has been determined that this was a mistake by the church and Applied Scholastics.
The church and its agencies have attacked my staff, my family, my business and me over
the last six years because of this issue.
I have shown you how this mistake was made with the WISE licensing problem of taking
ten percent of a business when the church was not expert in that business. Many
individuals were declared during this reorganize time in the 1980s.
The justice area has violated many of its own policies to cover up this point including
refusing to call Lance De Marcor in this year's committee of evidence on me. Lance had
a similar situation with his school in Clearwater where there was confusion over whether
he should pay ten percent or not. The same person, Emil Proest, who told my past wife
that this ten percent needed to be paid, upset Lance's wife. Emil Proest was also refused
to be called in my committee. Similar events have occurred in seven other committees.
You requested that we meet over this issue. I offered you a "forgive and forget" option so
we both could get back to work. This has now been set aside.
These talks have only been a stalling and data collection tactic for you.
Sincerely, Randy J. Payne
1
November 9, 2004
The Church of Scientology demand its rights to the Bill of Rights, but demands its
members give up those rights for the protection of this church. The Church Scientology
has become a defacto regulatory agency for the Clearwater area. The church has a
practice of cutting all business and personal freedoms of speech to those who oppose the
church's business interests. It also punishes any church member that would communicate
to the opposing individual. The process within this church is called declaring a person
suppressive or a suppressive person declare.
St. Petersburg Times, June 2002, reports the efforts of the Church of Scientology to
control a local business executive, Brian Haney of Digital Lightwave. Mr. Haney's wife
had been declared a suppressive person by formal church document. According to the
church's suppressive person document the only Scientologist Mrs. Haney could talk to
was the Scientology Justice Chief. This documented dictated Mr. Haney was given the
choice between divorcing his wife and leaving Digital Lightwave.
The church has attacked me for sending this article to a private attorney. The Church of
Scientology has claimed the right to control this freedom of speech to private attorneys.
The church created a legal falsehood that Scientologists needed to pay ten percent of their
educational business to the Church of Scientology's educational branch called Applied
Scholastics. The church then forced Scientologist to payor be punished by the
Scientology Justice system.
I made these payments for over four years. A Scientology English teacher, John Davis,
was not made to make these payments. When I discovered that this double standard was
not going to be corrected I refused to pay the ten percent at the end of 1997. Since that
time my family, friends, staff and students have been attacked by the Church of
Scientology's justice system representing Scientology educational group Applied
Scholastics. These are organized attacks to protect the collection of ten percents. My
million dollar-a-year English school network in Hungary was taken over by the church's
Office of Special Affairs legal representative, Peter Karpati. Church justice
representative, Emil Proest, attacked my local small high school by telling my teachers
and wife that they could not work there because I was going to be declared a suppressive
person.
In a final effort to prove to church that it was covering up its own activities I requested a
formal church justice hearing with two witnesses, Lance De Marcor, another local
educator, and Emil Proest, the church justice representative. This was refused. It would
have shown Emil Pro est had told Mrs. De Marcor that her husband was bad. The ensuing
stress other the next year might be related to her death. The witnesses would have also
shown church documents investigating Mr. De Marcor's school and forcing him to pay
ten percent or be in trouble with the church.
-.
'"
2
The refusal to present these documents was to preserve the millions of dollars Applied
Scholastics collects from its ten percent enforcement around the world.
These are not the only areas of Scientology's influence in business and personal matters
in the Clearwater. The suppressive person declare and the resulting restriction of freedom
of speech in business and family matters is a powerful threat to comply with the church's
wishes. Attached are supporting examples.
This is a list of specific example and events with the actual persons and documentation
named. The areas demonstrate over twenty-five years of the Church of Scientology
growing up and willing to cover up its mistakes at the expense of truth relating to its own
membership.
I. Violate Its Own Rules to Reach Preconceived Conclusion
II. Attacks on Family, Friends and Staff
III. False Files and Twisted Truths
IV. Applied Scholastics and Enforcement ofTen Percents
'.
3
Violate Its Own Rules to Reach Preconceived Conclusion
The United States Constitution protects the rights of an individual to be shown all
evidence used against that individual. It also guarantees that an individual will be given a
fair trail, which, in part, means that those doing the judging have to be able to understand
the subject that is violated.
The Church of Scientology has its own similar set of policies. It advertises that it follows
these policies one hundred percent and guarantees this standard to its members.
Since 1997, I have been in conflict with Scientology over the Church's right to take ten
percent of the gross income of a private educational group.
Many breaches of Scientology's own contract policies with its members have been
documented over the past seven years.
The most recent was the pretense that I could call witnesses to show that church was
forcing others to pay ten percent. When I asked for Lance De Marcor and Emil Proest as
witnesses this was denied. The church's own documents now show this to be a cover up
by the church.
I am ending here for now.
The extreme effort on my part to help the church to clean up its own laundry has taken a
great deal of my strength. No one has a right that I need go any farther.
I will continue to prepare this document at my own pace. They is enough here for any
honest investigation to sort this out.
I have on-going meetings with difference church and law enforcement agencies.
Hopefully a public show down will not be needed.
Sincerely,
Randy J. Payne